I was the lone voice on the right against invading Iraq. The recent events in Iraq made even leftists supportive of the Iraqi affair. They are mistaken.

The reduction in the number of casualties and roadside bombs in Iraq looks awesome until we realize that further improvement will be much harder. The US Army made the security progress in Iraq by three measures: buying short-term allegiance of the Sunni tribal elders, flushing some guerrillas out of the convenient urban strongholds, and convincing Iran to step down its support for guerrillas. Now the list of macro-level solutions is exhausted. The residual guerrilla warfare represents the activity of small, semi-independent groups without state sponsors or fortified towns. They planted the whopping 1,560 roadside bombs in October.

The Mahdi Army, part of which suspended the military activity, is a militia rather than a guerrilla group. That is, Mahdi Army is a large, relatively organized, thus targetable force. The guerrillas who are attacking in Iraq now are small and loose, a target as formidable as drops of mercury in the grass. The excellent US Army did everything which could be done in military terms. Further improvement is only possible through painstaking police work or, more realistically, through the Saddam-type wide-scale terror against the supportive population.

Israeli example is instructive: it is possible to prevent 95-98% of terrorist attacks, but the 2-5% which take place eventually break the popular resistance and force major concessions. Iraq can never achieve a prevention ratio on par with small, totalitarian Israel. One market bombing a week somewhere in Iraq is a rate sufficient to bring government down. Terrorism is cheap, simple, and its sources are inexhaustible.

On the fundamental level, what can constitute an American victory in Iraq? Substituting a friendly strongman for Saddam is a rational answer, but not the one the US media would embrace. The politically correct Americans would prefer a democratic government in Iraq too weak to brutalize its people. Such government would either have to rely on Shiites and suppress Sunnis, or try balancing the rival groups like in Lebanon. The best Iraq the US can hope for will be made in Lebanon’s image, and equally unstable. Given the Kurds’ separatism and the foreign Arabs’ support of Iraqi Sunnis, the Lebanese model won’t last for long.

Republicans desperately need victory in the Middle East before the elections. They befriended a devil, that is, the ayatollahs. Iraqi militia depends on safe havens and considerable financing, and Iran provided both. The easy way to reduce fighting in Iraq was to convince Iran to desist. Iran agreed to desist. In return for what? A likely answer is that the US Administration compensated Iran for its help in Iraq with security guarantees. America will push for new sanctions but not attack the Iranian nuclear facilities.

The Administration probably worked on agreement with Syria to limit the infiltration of guerrillas into Iraq, and resented Israeli strike against Syria’s WMD facilities. Anyway, the US channeled considerable funds to Syria to strengthen its border security. Syria’s acceptance of the offer certainly hinged on the additional demands such as the Golan Heights.

Annapolis peace conference serves both to soothe the US Administration’s Arab friends and as a stand-alone PR measure for Bushies.

The purported discovery of Saddam’s documents implicating him of everything from the attacks on America to terrorism to WMD came suspiciously handy. Saddam’s connections with Al Qaeda are of the same stock as an average American’s connection to McDonald’s: like it or not, one day you eat there. Al Qaeda is a vague franchise, not organization. Everyone in the Muslim world is linked to someone in Al Qaeda. The US, too, is linked to Al Qaeda through the support of Afghan mujahedeen and the Iranian insurgents in Baluchistan. Pakistan, the US ally, was heavily involved with Al Qaeda. Syria works with Al Qaeda-affiliated Fatah al Islam in Lebanon. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar openly accommodate the well-known Al Qaeda cells. Saddam’s intelligence operated throughout the world, from Pakistan to Czechoslovakia to America. Sure it has some dealings with some groups affiliated with Al Qaeda. No need to translate any documents to guess that. That’s not, however, corpus delicti by the standards of international intelligence services.

The documents reportedly implicate Iraq in the anthrax mail attacks in America. So what? The United States bombed Iraq, humiliated it, patrolled it with aircraft, imposed sanctions on it – and expected no retaliation? The anthrax affair, if true, was the mildest response imaginable on the part of Iraq.

Iraq’s plans for purchasing precursors for chemical weapons are no surprise, either. Iran and Iraq used chemical weapons, and both countries clearly stocked them after the war. It is surprising that the documents only show Iraq’s intent of procuring the precursors rather than actual production. Iraqi chemical weapons, if any, are a negligible threat to Israel compared to hundreds of Syrian mid-range missiles or, worse still, Pakistani nuclear bombs. Iraqi WMD did not threaten America at all.

The touted transfer of Iraqi nuclear material to Syria is a sham. Syria reportedly received the uranium only enriched to a very low grade, not very different from nuclear waste available elsewhere. The transfer apparently arranged by the Russian military intelligence GRU already after the American invasion, is a shame to the US intelligence. GRU likely moved the uranium to Syria for purely commercial purposes, but it is also possible that the enriched uranium was Russian. In that case, GRU needed to clear the evidence. The Iraqi uranium’s origin can easily be traced from the radioactive signature of storage bunkers. The translated documents show that Iraq collected nuclear know-how – a far cry from developing nuclear weapons.

There is no honorable end to the Iraqi war, but America needs to end it.

Iraqi Kurdistan is Turkey’s West Bank. Historically part of Turkey, it was severed from the Ottoman Empire by Britain, supported later by the US and EU, and now turned into a terrorist nest. Kurds, genetic relatives of Jews, are way more civilized than Arabs. Iraqi Kurdistan is a very safe place by the Middle East’s standards and a progressive country with relatively transparent government, equal rights for women, and decent education. Unlike Arabs, Kurds are law-abiding and honest people. They created a state of the kind the Palestinians can never build. Kurds claim the territory which is theirs by any standard: they settle it since the time immemorial. Settling the land, however, doesn’t automatically provide for sovereignty, as Basques or Chechens have learned. An ethnic group has to show its viability and claim its sovereignty forcefully. So do the Kurds.

Supported by lush oil revenues, Kurds fight for independence at least since 1920s. They enjoy support from many corners. Iran supports Kurds to bleed Iraq, Israel – to obtain regional bases against Iran and Iraq, America – to subvert Saddam and now Iran, oil interests – to receive concessions without tenders. Russia seems to support the Kurds to bug its historical rival, Turkey. None of these countries, however, wants to upset Turkey, everyone’s ally against Islam.

Turkey cannot afford to lose its Kurdistan. The loss of the Ottoman Empire still reverberates in Turkish society. Turkey never acquiesced to the humiliating loss of a piece of Cyprus to Greece. Independence of Turkish Kurdistan would humiliate Turkish military and unleash a wave of Islamism in Turkey. America abandoned the Iraqi Kurds to Saddam after inciting them to revolt; Turkey expects the US to do nothing about large-scale Turkish operation in northern Iraq against the Kurds.

PKK and other Kurdish guerrilla groups stain the image of good Kurds, but they have no choice. Nice nations do not secede or are awarded sovereignty. The PKK is deliberately smeared. They are not a Marxist group but operate many businesses. They trade in drugs; so did the British Empire just eighty years ago. Besides, supplying drugs to Europe is not a matter of creating new markets but rather wrestling the existing markets from organized crime groups. The PKK benefited Europe by acquiring a large chunk of drug trade: the proceeds fund Kurdish struggle rather than gang fights and street crime in Europe. PKK’s drug trade, so to say, sucks the dirtiest money from Europe.

Turkish Kurds rightfully claim a state of their own. Preventing them would result in considerable bloodshed. Carving a land for Kurds from Turkey entails unacceptable costs for the West. The best way to deal with the Kurdish issue is to abandon the US Administration’s obsession with preserving the artificial Iraqi state, that Frankenstein state stitched together by the British. Kurds must get a state of their own in Iraq. That would justly reward them for their help against Iraq and create a welcome source of perpetual conflict between Kurds and Arabs who consider Kurdistan an Arab land. Perpetually endangered Kurdistan will be Israel’s ally. Independent Kurdistan will be more wary of close relations with Iran than now, when Iran is the Kurds most reliable ally against Iraq. Independent Kurdistan’s territorial dispute with Turkey will be a conflict between these two states, and won’t draw the entire West into the dead-end war the West has no business in. And the Arabs will get the message: mess with America, and risk your state being cut into pieces.

Americans negotiate with Iran over Iraq’s fate. Iran needs influence on the Shiite Iraq – whether by supporting guerrillas or political process, is irrelevant. Iranian and American tactical vision for Iraq coincides: a relatively peaceful state governed by majority. For America, that means democracy; for Iraq – Shia dominance. Iran traditionally supports Kurdish separatists in Iraq and the Iranian-influenced Shia rule is unlikely to oppress Kurds. Iraqi Sunni minority is of no concern to America and Iran, and only of nominal concern for Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Satisfying Western oil corporations, Kurds will continue controlling much of Iraqi oil production if Iraq falls into Iranian sphere of influence.

US invasion of Iraq will appear to serve Iranian interests: Americans crushed anti-Iranian Saddam and delivered Iraq into Iran’s hands. Propaganda will blur that public relations disaster. Americans swallowed both the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent occupation, and will similarly swallow ignominious withdrawal.

US Republicans insist on staying in Iraq largely to retain chance on wining the next elections. Withdrawal amid incomplete security in Iraq would be trumpeted as political failure. Military-industrial complex supports the occupation of Iraq as ad hoc replacement of the Cold War arms market. Corruption is another reason: billions of dollars in contractors’ profits pay for lobbying. Corruption is rampant in Pentagon – and not only with regards to Iraq. Pentagon approves commercial sales to Iran because of the sanctions, and Pentagon’s bureaucrats route all orders through friendly contractors. When independent supplier wins a tender, Pentagon forces it to cooperate with preferred contractors under the threat of blocking the deal. In several cases, Pentagon interdicted legal shipments to Iran by uncooperative suppliers.

The Shiite empire’s extension need not frighten Israel. Though Shiites are doctrinally more militant and centralized than Sunnis, Iranians are more civilized and intellectually advanced than Arabs. In the long term, Israel will have fewer problems with Iran than with Egypt. Fed up with ayatollahs, Iranians are quickly secularizing while Egypt is taken by the wave of religious fundamentalism. Unlike Egyptians, Iranians are friendly to Jews: the only large and content Jewish community in the Muslim world lives in Iran. The Iranian-sponsored Hezbollah sets no goal to destroying Israel, and Hamas only nominally adheres to such goal. Shiite empire will engage Arabs in arms race, bankrupting them, and will set Arab crosshairs on Tehran rather than Tel Aviv. Wahhabites and other Sunni radicals will fight Shiites rather than Jews; fighting fellow sectarians is simpler than Israelis and sectarians often hate each other stronger than they hate external enemies.

Bombings will not cease in Iraq if America and Iran settle the matter. It would take any Iraqi government years to re-create Saddam’s combination of pervasive turncoats and widespread brutality. America accepted former Nazis and even SS (e.g., Schleyer) members as top German post-war bureaucrats for the sake of efficiency, but purged Iraqi bureaucracy of much more benign Baathists. Iraqi government will prefer occasional bombings to losing American support and subsidies over publicized crackdowns on civilian supporters of guerrillas. Iraqi establishment welcomes a tolerable level of suicide bombings as a means to persuade America for more funds and weapons.

Contrary to Bush’s assertions, democracy cannot function under fire. Ancient Rome appointed dictators during national emergencies, and the police state of Israel is a democracy only in name. Market bombings disrupt Iraqi economy, as do the occasional kidnappings. Tired of insecurity, Iraqi population will vote another Saddam into the office. History knows of a way of countering guerrilla war without massive harm to population: paramilitary death squads. The underlying notion is countering a micro-threat on micro-level without judicial review. Like Israel financed South Lebanon Army to act against the PLO (and should finance against Hezbollah), Iraq can encourage paramilitary organizations not directly traceable to the government to eradicate insurgents. Lacking safe heavens and strong backing, guerrillas will eventually cease, though initially they will try increasing the scale of attacks to grab the headlines; larger truck bombings conform to such trend.

Iraq’s security problems are solvable – not immediately, but by attrition of guerrillas over years. Presence of the US troops in Iraq compounds the problem rather than solves it. Many insurgents glad to fight the Americans won’t care fighting Iraqis; destabilizing the US-imposed order in Iraq is vastly more glorious than inconspicuous insurgency against yet another corrupt Muslim regime behind the headlines. Iran/ Syria and Saudi Arabia politically cannot quit supporting guerrillas while the US troops occupy Iraq. They might not quit even if the US withdraws.
American withdrawal from Iraq won’t repair the country, but the US occupation makes the things worse.

In the current environment of raging media and self-serving political debate, evacuation increasingly looks like an honorable option in Iraq. American soldiers die and kill for nothing, senselessly. Only such wars are worse fighting where the nations are prepared to gather resolve and disregard body count of their soldiers and enemy civilians. Starting a war in Iraq, non-essential for American people, predetermined the fall of Baghdad to pro-Iranian insurgency. If things turn out good, the ordeal would be more orderly than in Saigon.

The US prompted an Iran-Iraq war to counter Khomeini a year after he came to power. With the elite Iraqi forces busy at the home front fighting insurgents, several hundred thousands of Egyptians entered Iraq. Saddam gave them the rights equal to citizens’ and drew many Egyptians into the army at $600+ wages. Tens of thousands of Egyptians died in Iran-Iraq war. The US implores Syria and Iran’s cooperation over the Iraqi war, though it is Egypt that exerts the largest influence on Iraq.

Iran floods Iraq with Shiites to create demographic pressure and tip the elections. Saudis, afraid of Saddam, influenced Bush to overthrow him. Now Saudis aid Sunni militia on par with Iran’s aid to Shiites. A Shiite Iraq is Saudi’s nightmare because it will energize latent Shia majority in the Saudi oil regions. Iran staged many provocations in Saudi Arabia like sending huge numbers of pilgrims to Mecca to bug the Sunnis. Iran aims to bring down Saudi monarchy in favor of the Iranian-style democracy. Syria accepts Iranian protection but aids Iraqi Sunnis, not Shiites. In Lebanon, Syria helped Christians, Shiites, and Druzes. Pro-Syrian Shiite Hezbollah doesn’t want a civil war but Saniora pushes it against the wall to make the US interfere. Syria, like Saudi Arabia, needs civil war in Iraq to distract the US from changing Syrian regime. Syrian intelligence stirs Iraqi factions. Kuwait wants the Iraq embroiled in civil war rather than planning against its historically integral part, Kuwait. Iran needs that war to remove the prospect of American invasion. Israel assists Kurds to obtain a beachhead for the possible confrontation with Iran and Iraq. Kurds don’t want strong Iraq because it will deprive them of oil revenues. Turkey resents a strong Iraq which kills Kurdish separatists, stirring discontent among Turkey’s Kurds. Turkey also resents a weak Iraq which allows Kurdish independence, agitating Kurdish separatists in Turkey. Oil corporations clap their hands and pockets to the war in Iraq which drives up oil prices and profits.
American military industries, cash-starved since the end of the Cold War, needed a major procurement push resulting from the Iraqi war. American neocons want an action against rogue Muslim state. Iraq is a continuation of the US domestic policy: the purposeless war is meant to fool the voters into thinking that the government fights terrorism while, Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran develop nuclear weapons unhindered. America similarly wiped its political errors with others’ lives in Lebanon (Israel invaded it after the US-sponsored democratic elections brought Hezbollah to power) and Palestine (America pushed for transparent and then prompted Fatah to fight democratically elected Hamas).

Lebanese civil war was settled through expulsion of militant Palestinians and exhaustion once Israel abandoned SLA and Syria reduced its financing of warring factions. Iraqi factions are well financed from abroad. Lebanon has a history of balancing Sunnis, Shia, and Christians in the intricate power-sharing arrangement. Iraq historically suppressed the factions, each of whom now advances power and economic demands. Iraqi insurgency is relatively easy to crush through wide-scale repressions against the supportive population, but liberal Americans don’t want to allow that. Iraqi army was weak; it suffered defeats from Kurds before Saddam. Now, with the commanders dead or in hiding, it would take years to build an army capable of crushing insurgency.

Every power in the Middle East has an interest in continuing the Iraqi war, and who cares about the people?

The Democrats' imposition of a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq could be a responsible act of defiance of the President's wrong policy, but realisitcally it is farce. Democrats could afford such a gesture because Bush will veto it. When things go sour in Iraq, Democrats will refer to their attempt to end the fiasco. Their responsibility is zero because the bill would not be implemented.
If Democrats are so concerned about American lives and money, why not withdraw from Iraq immediately or, as their budget power allows, in early 2008? Whether Iraq plunges into chaos now or in 2009, makes no difference. There is no way that any peaceful balance between Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds could be achieved in a year.
The withdrawal timeline, if accepted by Bush, would provide a clear signal to the militants: not only hold on a bit longer, but also make a final push to gain tactical advantages in the relatively calm situation now before the major battle unfolds after the US troops leave. The Democrats' bill is a victory for insurgents: de jure, they have pushed Great Satan out of Iraq. They could even keep quite for a year and devote their time to training and military build-up, and wait for the US to leave.
Bush is wrong on Iraq. The Democrats are demagogic.

Idealists often urge Israel to be nice to Palestinians and help them develop. Today, the opposite notion, namely that goodness doesn't pay, was reinforced. Minuscule nation of Lithuania whose only historic achievement was the enthusiastic slaughter of Jews during the Holocaust, probed American reaction for withdrawal of its token contingent from Iraq, ridiculous 53 troops. Decades ago, the US, virtually alone, refused to recognize Soviet annexation of the Baltic states, and allowed unhindered operation of independent consulates. America unflinchingly supported the worthless Baltic states against the giant Russia – contrary to the US' rational interests. The Lithuanians deem a symbolic gesture of 53-strong force too much for the American help. That's very human: by the time immediate threat or hardship passes, beneficiaries hate their helpers.
The US fought essentially for Britain in WWII, the European war of no particular interest to America. Hitler, if anything, praised America for successful racial segregation. Germany economically cooperated with America and provided bulwark against communism better than any Latin American dictatorship the US courted after the war. Still, the US entered the war on Britain's side. Now the UK pulls its troops out of Iraq – admittedly, a lost venture, but a venture with the best partner Britain could get. Instead of slapping the UK with revocation of its status of "America's man in Europe," the United States government welcomes the British move as a sign of successful pacification of Iraq. Who is expected to buy that lie?
The politically correct American empire shies from demanding loyalty, and receives none.

Auditors that accuse the US government of squandering billions in Iraq miss the key point: why pay for the reconstruction at all? Wars are meant to inflict damage. Much-touted Marshall Plan wasn't critical for post-WWII reconstruction of Germany. Nazi, politically and economically isolated and threatened with reparations, cornered rampant inflation and built powerful economy from scratch in only six years.
The US even pays the companies like Halliburton to rebuilt Iraq's oil infrastructure. That's supposed to be a profitable business not in the need of subsidies. Paying American contractors American salaries with large wartime surcharges to do the job the Iraqi could lousily do themselves is outrageous. The outsourcing to America builds resentment among Iraqi entrepreneurs who see their income flowing elsewhere.
The announced overcharge of 17% is surprisingly small. Given the Iraqi mess and near-impossibility of verifying the performed work, one would expect half to two-thirds of the contract payments stolen. Auditors work only with papers: proper documentation clears the charges. Quality of work and even the fact of performing the work are not checked during audit. Wages, unreasonable by Iraqi and very high by American standards, are not questioned. The amount of work in terms of man-hours is not thoroughly verified.
The Iraqi reconstruction recalls killing of a huge elephant for his tusks. For the kickbacks of less than 0.5%, often merely for gifts, Pentagon and the Department of State's officials squander dozens of billions of dollars, and shape the US policies in Iraq to the detriment of American troops and taxpayers.
Iraqi guerrillas are doing the job of American auditors. The US could run out of dishonest contractors.

Good job, as always. Useless, too. 3,000 soldiers search dozens of thousands of households in Baghdad for well-hidden weapons caches and dubiously distinguishable guerrillas. And happily reporting none. After weeks of announcements and saber rattling. Americans, who don't know the Iraqis' verbal or body language; Shiite Iraqi soldiers, less than eager to search for Shiite guerrillas. Searching nicely and peacefully instead of provoking the enemy and luring him out with brutal assault on Shiite civilians. Targeting arbitrary neighborhoods while the insurgents comfortably – and temporarily – relocated to nearby villages.
A media-savvy war.

Bush's decision to crack on the insurgents in Baghdad is apparently inspired by the success in Fallujah.

A peaceful place under Saddam, Fallujah became a hotbed of insurrection after the US invasion. After the world saw the photos of the burned Americans hanging from the bridge, the US was forced to act. The first battle of Fallujah was stalled amid indecisiveness and civilian losses. Though US troops fought bravely and had unquestionable tactical edge, it proved impossible to extract insurgents from the civilian masses. Soon after the assault ended, guerrillas again took over the city. The confrontation was won by the militants as well as by the Arab media, particularly Al Jazeera.

The second battle of Fallujah was conducted more realistically with the goal of inflicting unbearable losses on the guerrillas. Civilian casualties were treated lightly, and the operation recalled Saddam's Dujail affair. Marines at times blocked escape to local males, civilians or not, used white phosphorus, and devastated the city. The harsh measures were necessary. Even then, only two to five thousand Iraqis were killed, a minor fraction of local militants. Marines suffered heavy casualties, about eight hundred. Insurgents moved to nearby villages and, while Fallujah remains relatively pacified, Anbar province came under the control of insurgents.

Bush's selling point is the prevention of re-infiltration. That was tried in Fallujah. After tactically defeating the militants, US troops restricted Iraqis from entering Fallujah to the point of issuing biometric IDs. That slowed infiltration, but did not stop it. Attacks on American personnel in Fallujah continued.

The methods grudgingly possibly in the remote town of Fallujah won't do in Baghdad which teems with reporters. Going after insurgents necessitates attacks on civilians, and both Muslim and Western media would trumpet the sufferings. Baghdad, even the Sadr district, is too large to cordon off. Urban environment of Baghdad slums drastically differs from Fallujah; concentration of population precludes air strikes and makes house-to-house combat extremely costly in terms of American lives. Marines, who conducted the Fallujah assault, are the finest American troops, daring, adaptive, and, critically, with open-minded commanders. The Army is very good, but lacks flexibility - a crucial component of anti-guerrilla operations.

US troops have many strengths, but one weakness spells the failure: moralism. American troops skillfully kill and are ready to die, but politicians want them to fight under unrealistic restrictions. The goal of terrorists is to instill terror. To that end, they will mix with population and attract the American strikes. They disregard - in fact, welcome - losses, whether their own, Iraqi, or American. Insurgents are well funded, religiously and ideologically motivated, and ruthless. It would take years of extreme repressions to extinguish their support base and ultimately prevail against them. American troops, on the other hand, have a short time span: the assault would end when media, Senate, and leftists start screaming bloody murder. The politically correct liberal democracy performs badly in dubious wars.

Kurds, a strong and large nation, deserve a state of their own (like Jews, they want it without Arabs). Most Kurds, however, live in tough-mannered Turkey which won't easily give them one fifth of its territory. Iran, a home for six million Kurds, is similarly ill mannered and isn't worth asking for sovereignty. Kurds, therefore, historically chose a relatively soft spot for their sovereignty demands - Iraq. In doing so, they have full support of Iran which assures its own territorial integrity and troubles Iraq. Later, Israel started sponsoring the Kurdish insurgents to distract Iraq and perhaps even acquire in autonomous Kurdistan a base for the operations against Iran and Iraq. Before calling Iran and Israel irresponsible instigators, consider the peripheral wars staged by America to weaken the Soviets. In Afghanistan alone, one and a half million people were killed, most of them with the American money and weapons.

Saddam wasn't the first to massively kill the Kurds. British used air power and artillery against the Kurdish civilians in 1930. Protracted struggle followed with intermittent uprisings every few years. Sometimes, the Iraqi government granted the Kurds a degree of independence to be revoked when the balance of power shifted. When Saddam came to power, Kurds were not a defenseless minority but thoroughly armed population with considerable army which, for example, defeated regular Iraqi army in 1966. Among other violent acts, several decades earlier Kurds repeatedly massacred Christian Assyrians. In 1980s, Kurdish army was at least 60,000 strong, being armed by Iran and Israel for decades.

Late 1970s saw intense fighting between Kurdish militia and the Iraqi army. At that time, Baghdad employed the standard anti-insurrection measure, resettlement. Since, however, Kurds wanted a state, not merely personal survival, the resettlement crashed their hopes and was bitterly opposed.

International Criminal Court (ICC) defines genocide as an action intended to destroy a national group. That was not Saddam's intention: only a tiny percentage of the Kurdish population was annihilated. Saddam rather perpetrated ethnic cleansing, forced removal of indelible group from a territory. Theoretically, ethnic cleansing is also a crime against humanity, but of much lower order than genocide.

Despite its agreement with Iraq, Iran continued supporting Kurdish insurgents. Ten percent of the population, autonomously residing in a large territory, aligned with the enemy at war, is dangerous. Saddam chose a brutal, but commonsense solution: to clean the border areas with Iran of hostile Kurds. The operation was extended to oil-rich areas because Iraq, exhausted by the war with Iran, had to secure the oil revenues. Most of the Kurds repressed during the Anfal campaign refused government orders regarding evacuation and resettlement. With few unavoidable exceptions, women and children were resettled and interned, not killed. Military-age males were summarily executed on the assumption that those found on the prohibited territories are likely to be or support the guerrillas.

Most commentators cite the number of killed about 50,000. That constitutes 0.8% of the Iraqi Kurds and falls short of genocide. The number fades in comparison to more than a million people killed in the ongoing war with Iran. The number is probably much lower. During the extensive investigation, Human Rights Watch collected only 17,000 names of the deceased relatives. That includes many missing people. Since women were almost never killed and most people survived in Kurdish extended families, a significant omission is unlikely: someone always remained to testify. Examination of gravesites produced similar figures. Relative prosperity of the Kurdish region also shows that the killing was limited in scope. To be sure, brutal death of even 17,000 people is a tragedy - but not genocide, and arguably a military measure.

Saddam is also condemned for the gas attack on Halabja. The reports by CIA and the US Army intelligence agency put the blame on Iran simply because Iraq did not have the poison gases used in that city. When the US relations with Iraq soured, America shifted the blame on Iraq - many years after the event, based on no new evidence whatsoever. Even if Iraq had indeed perpetrated the attack, it seemingly targeted the Iranian troops and ubiquitous Kurdish insurgents. Credible accounts place the number of dead at several hundred - again, not genocide.